Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Three: Scripture

There are some people, like it or not, who just hear the sound of that King
James Version English (or any common Bible translation for that matter) and
they run for cover in the other direction. Why? Well, sometimes its bad
memories of church, sometimes its preconceived false ideas about Christianity
(or more likely, Christians), sometimes its just that it makes no sense to
their 21st century mind. So, I would say, that if I am having to choose
between: 1) giving/quoting a less than ideal translation (and/or a paraphrase)
in order for someone to at least read the Bible; or 2) quoting a more
common/reliable translation like the NKJV, NIV, or NASB, but as a result having
a bunch of people remain unwilling to read scripture at all—then, I would say I would have to go
ahead and use whatever translation/paraphrase was available to me that might
get people at least thinking/reading about Jesus AS LONG AS THAT
TRANSLATION/PARAPHRASE DID NOT COMPROMISE THE ESSENTIAL TENETS OF THE FAITH.
This last qualifier I have added is very important. I think that any
translation/paraphrase is at least usable as long as we do not see it
marring/perverting concepts directly related to our identification of, and
relationship to, God—e.g., the personal nature of God, the Trinity, the full humanity
and deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the physical/bodily resurrection.

Also, it must be kept in mind, that unless you can actually read Hebrew or
Greek, you are at the mercy of ANY translation no matter how good it is.
Moreover, each translation has its own weaknesses and strengths—that includes
the KJV, NASB, NIV, and other common translations. No translation was handed
down from God. We don't even have the original autographs of God's Word. We
have some very early copies, but they are copies, nevertheless. And even when
dealing with these manuscript copies, we have what are known as manuscript
families (i.e., batches of copies that reflect a certain tradition, usually
from a certain area of the Old World). In other words, the topic of biblical
translations, versions, and paraphrases is not so cut and dry as some people
would have us believe.

This is an area that we all need to show a little tolerance for differing
opinions. For example, I am no fan of The Message—believe me. But I do know, personally,
many people, who for whatever reason, love The Message, and more importantly,
it has really enabled them to get through the Bible, which in turn has brought
them closer to Christ. For some people, in fact, The Message was the first
Bible they could understand. And after reading it, they actually accepted
Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Now what? Are we going to say these people are not Christians? Have they not
been drawn closer to God? Do they not love Jesus because they read a
paraphrase? I guess my point is that God can, and does, use anything. He can
speak to us in a myriad of ways: translations, paraphrases, other people, a
nudging in the spirit, dreams, visions. If he spoke through the mouth of
Balaam's ass (Numbers 22), he can speak through a paraphrase of his Holy Word.
God is sovereign. I am not saying that every translation/paraphrase is equal.
Some are indeed better than others. But that does not mean we can go around
crucifying people simply because they don't happen to feel the same way we do
about a particular translation/paraphrase.

You know what is so odd to me is that we have teen Bibles and children's
Bibles, but suddenly, when someone tries to produce an adult Bible that reaches
down to where a person is, we castigate it for contributing to “Biblical
illiteracy” or get all flustered about
“dumbing down” God's Holy and Infallible Word. Well, alright. I
suppose, then, that we should just let kids and teens struggle unnecessarily
with out-dated language and rejoice that our neighbors are not reading a Bible
at all. Sorry, that does not make any sense to me.

And as for Biblical literacy, the lack of it in churches is not, in my opinion,
traceable to translations and paraphrases. In the first place, Biblical
literacy is NOT just being able to spout innumerable verses from the KJV, NIV,
or NASB. Biblical literacy has far more to do with being a “doer” of
as much of the Word as you know, rather than just a “hearer” of the
Word who keeps heaping up more knowledge that goes into the head and pretty
much stays there. You can have a veritable storehouse of verses from the best
translation in the world locked up in your head and be quite the Biblical
scholar—but at the same time not live out the simplest phrases from The Message that talk about love, kindness,
gentleness, respect, humility, or patience.

Real Biblical literacy is knowing what the Bible says—and doing it. Real
Biblical literacy is not just obeying those easy verses that teach the big DO
NOTS (like do not get drunk, steal, commit adultery)—it's also deciding to obey
the tougher things like being considerate, or thinking before you speak, or
really putting others before yourself, or not judging another person just
because they look differently (or dress differently) than you dress. Real
Biblical literacy is having the principles/truths of John 3:16, 1 Corinthians
14, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5, and Philippians 1-2 rooted deep in your heart
and living them out—even though you may not be able to quote a chapter/verse perfectly
from the best translation. I have found so many Christians who think that
quoting some Bible verse(s) or Bible versions makes them holy, righteous, or
Christ-like—or Biblically literate. But it doesn't. It usually just makes them
prideful.

This obsession with Warren's references to 40 days has become one of the many
gnats that critics of The Purpose Driven Life love to strain at. They basically
ignore the fact that Warren points people to the Bible as God's Word, calls the
world to Christ, says that life without God has no meaning, assures readers
that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, reminds everyone that storing up
temporal treasures is waste of time, exhorts Christians to live like Christ,
teaches believers that sin must be avoided, explains why it is important to
serve in the church, and promises that one of the greatest things we can do is
to tell others about Jesus. These things that are good/biblical in The Purpose
Driven Life are virtually dismissed by many of Warren's critics in favor of
what has become an almost mantra-like hypnotic chant: “40 days, 40 days,
scripture twisting, unbiblical, 40 days, 40 days, scripture twisting,
unbiblical, 40 days, 40 days, scripture twisting, unbiblical.”

For those who do not have an anti-Warren agenda, it is fairly obvious that
Warren was simply trying to say, in his own way, that the number 40 seems to
have very significant meaning in scripture. We see the number popping up
everywhere in the Bible. and it is often connected with events, people, places,
and things that show some drastic change in a person or circumstances. Now, as for the way that Warren sought to make
this particular point, his entire horrifying “perversion” and
so-called “mangling” of the Bible takes up a grand total of . . . .
[drum roll please] . . . . one sentence at the bottom of page 9. He writes:
“WHENEVER GOD WANTED TO PREPARE SOMEONE FOR HIS PURPOSES, HE TOOK 40
DAYS”). Warren followed up this comment with eight short bullet points (on
p. 10)—out of a 334-page book! His bullet points read:

“• Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain.
• Moses was transformed by 40 days on Mount Sinai.
• The spies were transformed by 40 days in the Promised Land.
• David was transformed by Goliath's 40-day challenge.
• Elijah was transformed when God gave him 40 days of strength from a single
meal.
• The entire city of Nineveh was transformed when God gave the people 40 days
to change.
• Jesus was empowered by 40 days in the wilderness.
• The disciples were transformed by 40 days with Jesus after his
resurrection.”

Now, let's look at this whole set-up, which is based on the undeniable fact
that the 40-day period of time appears in conjunction with many extraordinary
events in the lives of some well-known biblical characters—and this time period
is often closely related to God fulfilling a purpose/promise in their lives:
Noah, Moses, David, Jesus, the disciples. This is really the only thing Warren
is trying to say as a kind of “Hey, look at this interesting tid-bit of
biblical trivia. Kind of cool, huh? Let's use 40 days, too!'

Does Warren say all of this perfectly? No. Does he explain it using the best
examples? No. Does he uses a little excessive hyperbole and some over
simplifications? Sure. Okay, But instead of responding appropriately, critics
have turned this into a sideshow of criticism; a tempest in a teapot; and
mountain out of a mole hill, etc. Critics are latching on to these few lines in
Warren's lengthy book and are acting like he said something more akin to
“Jesus is not God!” Here are my thoughts.

First, Warren clearly should not have said “Whenever” God wanted to
prepare someone for his purposes. Obviously, God has also transformed people in
1 day, 1 hour, 40 hours, 40 years, etc. etc. etc. Big deal. Warren's use of
“whenever” might best be categorized as a either an overstatement, a
broad generalization, or perhaps even hyperbole—but not heresy, or anything
deserving of the kind of freaking-out that we are seeing from people. Critics
are fixating on the word “whenever” as if it had some radical anti-Trinitarian
implications or something. I want to just say to people, “C'mon, let's
keep this in perspective.” In context it is clear that the only thing
Warren was trying to do was use the number “40” as a peg on which some poor
lost soul or immature Christian could hang their proverbial hat. That’s all.
But for this offense people are willing to practically crucify him! Why? —
Gnats & Camels . . . Gnats & Camels . . . Gnats & Camels.

Second, concerning the bullet points? Well, truth be told—Warren gives: 1) some
good examples; 2) some good examples that were not worded very well; and 3)
some not-so-good examples. Ok, fine. sure, whatever. So what? Again, what
exactly has made everyone so hyper-angry? How judgmental and exacting are we to
be of a fellow believer? Are we only to smile and give approval to those
pastors/teachers who always get EVERYTHING right? If so, then we have some
problems:

•Ever hear a pastor/teacher quote Rev. 3:20-21 in reference to unbelievers??
HERETIC! This passage is really written to a backslidden church.
•Ever hear a pastor/teacher use Jer. 29:11 to assure Christians that God has
great plans for them? HERETIC! This passage is really directed toward Israel.
• Ever hear a pastor/teacher say that Matt. 18:18-20 has to do with prayer.
HERETIC! This passage is really about church discipline.
• Ever hear a pastor/teacher explain that 2 John 10-11 means you should not let
Mormon missionaries or Jehovah's Witnesses into your house? HERETIC! This
passage is really about church homes in the first century and not allowing
false teachers preach in that church home congregation.

The list goes on and on. I cannot count how many pastors/teachers,
evangelists,
radio Bible personalities, and even lay Christians have
misused/misinterpreted
all of the above passage (and more)! Now, should we start labeling
their entire
ministries as false, lying, deceptive, liberal, New Age, watered-down,
perverted, or abusive of scripture? Hardly. And yet people are being
terribly
exacting and unforgiving when it comes to Warren. Is there some kind of
anti-Warren agenda going on? I worry that for some reason Rick Warren
is being
held to a standard nobody else is being held to. Is that fair? Is that
Christian? I suppose that if some people want to be hyper-judgmental
about
every little thing Warren says, then that is certainly their choice and
freedom. But
they will have to be consistent and view/judge with equal harshness
anyone else
who has ever committed the same unspeakable crime of being mistaken on
some occasions and not getting every little Bible passage
perfect (yes, I am indeed being a bit sarcastic).

And, by the way, Warren's examples of persons “prepared” for God's
purposes via a 40-day period are not even all that terrible. Let's go
ahead and
look at them. Please notice, first of all, that Warren says “when God
wanted to prepare someone for His purposes . . .” (p. 9). He does NOT
say
“When God wanted to save someone.” I mention this point because most
critics have actually CHANGED what Warren said.  Marshall C.
St. John, for instance, in his ant-Warren diatribe “The Purpose Driven
Life–Guidance or Misguided?,” writes: “Noah . . . was a believer and
follower of God long before that time. Moses became God's man long
before his
40 days on Mount Sinai.” But these arguments by Mr. St. John are
irrelevant since Warren never said that it was during the 40-day period
that
either Moses or Noah became God's followers/believers. So here are
Warren's
examples and my take on them:

1. “Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain”: This one is not
too bad since I cannot imagine someone's life—including Noah's—not being
transformed in some way by the experience he endured for those 40 days during
which time it rained! Can you imagine? Wouldn't anybody be changed by living on
an Ark for 40 days in the rain with all those animals? Do you think Noah was changed by that experience? Personally, I think
that he was probably transformed quite a bit by this period of time on the Ark
as it rained for 40 days. So, I say, this one is fine. Warren does not say Noah
was saved by or through the 40 days. Warren just says he was
“transformed.”—ACCEPTABLE.
2. “Moses was transformed by 40 days on Mount Sinai”: This one sounds
okay to me as well. I, too, would have to say that Moses was
“transformed” and prepared during his time on Mt. Sinai for what God
wanted him to do. The critics are imposing on Warrens' remark all kinds
of
assumptive baggage that is simply not there. Warren is only seeking to
show that Moses, like so many biblical figures, went through a 40-day
period
of time. It's a very interesting number in scripture.—ACCEPTABLE.
3. “The spies were transformed by 40 days in the Promised Land”:
This, in my opinion, is not a very good example. All of the spies were probably
transformed, to be sure, but only two of them were transformed in a positive
way (i.e., Caleb and Joshua, see Numbers 14:24). The other ten spies lost faith
and spread a bad report about the land. So, I probably would have dropped this example myself because it is not completely
accurate (unless Warren is just referring to Caleb and Joshua)—UNACCEPTABLE.
4. “David was transformed by Goliath's 40-day challenge”: This is a
bit of a push, but I can see how Warren was viewing it since; a)
Goliath's
challenge to Israel did indeed last for 40-days (see 1 Sam. 17); and b)
the
outcome of the challenge (David's transition from lowly shepherd boy,
to hero,
and eventually king) was an ultimate result of the 40-day challenge.
But, as already noted, this is really pushing the envelope because
there is no in-depth biblical information about David during that
40-day
challenge. Additionally, the challenge was more directed at the
Israelite army
rather than David (in other words, if David would have been present
throughout
the challenge, then it would have been a much better illustration). I
can imagine, however, that God was probably
preparing David in some way during that 40-day period for his eventual
battle
with Goliath—maybe he was practicing a lot with his slingshot, maybe
God was
speaking to his heart, maybe he was fasting, maybe, maybe, maybe. . .
no
 one knows. Also, it should be pointed out that this example might
just be
poorly worded. The sentence CAN be read grammatically as follows:
“David
was transformed by [i.e., as a result of] Goliath's 40-day-challenge”
as
opposed to “David was transformed by [i.e., because he went through]
Goliath's 40-day-challenge. The latter interpretation seems to be how
many
critics are reading it, but the
former interpretation may be how Warren meant it. Still, it is just too
confusing. But I would never call it utterly unacceptable.—BORDERLINE
ACCEPTABLE (CONFUSING/PROBLEMATIC).
5. “Elijah was transformed when God gave him 40 days of strength from a
single meal”: This one, although an over-simplification of a rather complex
story, is acceptable in my opinion because Elijah was indeed strengthened by a
single meal (after he had nibbled at another meal) for a 40-day journey to Mt.
Horeb where he met with God (1 Kings 19:8-9). We really don't know what
happened during that 40-day journey, but it is not out of the question to
assume that Elijah was communing with God during that traveling period and
thinking over the recent events related to Ahab and Jezebel. The climax was his
meeting with God at Mt Horeb after his 40-days of traveling.—ACCEPTABLE.
6. “The entire city of Nineveh was transformed when God gave the people 40
days to change”: This one is fine, as we see from Jonah 3:1-10. The people
of Ninevah repented and changed their hearts toward God throughout a 40-day period
of waiting to see if God would indeed destroy them—ACCEPTABLE.
7. “Jesus was empowered by 40 days in the wilderness”: This one,
although I do not particularly  agree with how Warren worded it, is
certainly within the bounds of orthodoxy. Jesus did go into the wilderness for
40 days during which time he was tested by Satan. And given the words of Luke
4:14—i.e., “Jesus returned to Galilee IN POWER
of the Spirit”—I can see why Warren phrased his statement the way he
phrased it.—ACCEPTABLE.
8. “The disciples were transformed by 40 days with Jesus after his
resurrection”: This one is based on Acts 1:3, which tells us that after
Christ's resurrection he presented himself “by many convincing
proofs” to his followers for 40 days and spoke to them about “things
concerning the Kingdom of God” (NASB). Are Warren's critics actually
saying that Christ's disciples were NOT transformed during this period of time.
I know that I certainly would be transformed if I had seen Jesus appearing
around my home town for forty days and teaching people, including me, about
“things concerning the Kingdom of God”—ACCEPTABLE.

Clearly, the paroxysms of panic and the gnashing of teeth by Warren's critics
over the above eight points are hardly worthy of the time that has been spent
on them (including, IMHO, my own time spent having to tease out the above
arguments). The bottom line is that no author or a speaker communicates
everything perfectly. Warren is no exception. But one would think that fellow
believers would grant a bit of room for human imperfection to someone whose
goal is to bring people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ—not a false
Christ, not a false God, and not some self-help plan rooted in the bankrupt
Human Potential Movement.

Sadly, the very opposite seems to be true. In a somewhat analogous incident,
John the disciple came to Jesus one day and said, “‘Master, we saw one casting
out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.’
And Jesus said to him, ‘Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for
us’” (Luke 9:49-50). In reference to this verse, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary observes: “The disciples were
bigoted. Because this man was not of their company, they were ready to discount
his work completely” (Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, eds., The
Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1045).

This is such a classic case of majoring in the minors for the sake of
argument—and also for the sake of what I would call “intellectual
self-stimulation.” I mean, really, at this point I have to wonder why
these people like Busenitz are spending so much time and ink (or perhaps these
days, I should say, bandwidth) straining at so many itsy-bitsy gnats (again,
see Matthew 23: 23-24). Does Busenitz really think he is doing a service to
Christ by throwing on his hermeneutical magnifying glasses and teasing out all
the gnats from Warren's book? I would think that Busenitz might be of better
service to the kingdom by writing a treatise against Mormonism, or the influx of occultism in our
schools, or if need be, going out and feeding the poor.

But instead, Busenitz rails against Warren's use of Prov. 17:4 and a verse from
Jude to say, “Please people, stop your gossip! It's ungodly. It's sin. And
it divides us as a church!” Well, as I said in one of my previous answers,
fine, as long as Busenitz and others spend an equal amount of time going after
every single pastor/teacher/radio preacher/televangelist who has EVER mis-used
and/or misapplied: Rev. 3:20-21, Jer. 29:11, Matt. 18:18-20, and 2 John
1:10-11.But where does all of this tearing apart Rick Warren stop? No one seems
willing to just let the guy be a human being for Christ's sake (and I mean that
quite literally). You can pick 100 books off of any Christian bookshelf—and I
would venture to say that would include several off of Busenitz's own study
shelf—and rip apart author after author. Is this what we are supposed to do as
Christians?

God help Busenitz or MacArthur if someone were to start doing to them what they
are doing to Warren. In fact, I would suggest that both of them need to take a
good look at the various comments that have already been made about their
Calvinist interpretations of scripture—according to non-Calvinists, that is. To
non-Calvinists, Busenitz and MacArthur don't know what they're talking about
when it comes to all kinds of topics/verses (but that's a whole separate
discussion). Are we now supposed to accuse Busenitz and MacArthur for
mishandling God's Word? Having said all of this as a preface to my complete
answer, let's go ahead and look at what Busenitz is saying.

First, Busenitz writes that Warren says, “'If you listen to gossip, God says you are a troublemaker. Troublemakers listen to troublemakers [Prov.
17:4].” But here we see Busenitz already stacking the apologetic deck in
his favor by failing to mention that Warren's biblical references begin not
just with Prov. 17:4, but also Prov. 16:28; 26:20;
25:9; 20:19. These additional verses appear in Warren's endnote #14, which
immediately follows Warren's statement, “If you listen to gossip, God says
you are a troublemaker.” Here is what these verses—not mentioned Busenitz,
but cited by Warren—say:
• “A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close
friends” (NIV, Prov. 16:28).
• “Without wood a fire goes out; without gossip a quarrel dies down”
(NIV, Prov. 26:20).
• “If you argue your case with a neighbor, do not betray another man's
confidence” (NIV, Prov. 25:9).
• “A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid a man who talks too much (NIV,
Prov. 20:19).

Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think these verses are pretty
much saying EXACTLY what Warren states in his remark to the endnote—i.e.,
“If you listen to gossip, God says you are a troublemaker.” I mean,
it certainly seems as if Proverbs is talking about gossip in these verses, and
it certainly seems like Proverbs is saying that you're going to cause plenty of
trouble if you spread or listen to gossip. So it is odd to me that Busenitz is
making any objection. Even more troubling to me is that he seems to have
deliberately not cited all of the passages that Warren cited. Why? Personally,
I believe it is because it would have weakened his argument. Clearly, Warren
came out of the starting gate with a bunch of passages that show gossip is
condemned and that a person is indeed a troublemaker if they start spreading
and listening to it.

Second, right after this endnote #14 (accompanying statement—”If you
listen to gossip, God says you are a troublemaker”), Warren says,
“Troublemakers listen to troublemakers.” This is endnote #15, which
does indeed have only Prov. 17:4 listed as the source verse
(Contemporary
English Version). Here is where Busenitz begins to form his argument
(but again, notice how he utterly ignored the validity of Warren's
comment to endnote #14). Busenitz writes: “Yet Proverbs 17:4 does not
directly mention gossip (but rather evil speech and lying).”

It is amazing to me how Busenitz has to dig so deep to come up with something
with which to trash Warren. Notice how he says, “Yet Proverbs 17:4 does
not DIRECTLY mention gossip (but rather evil speech and lying).” What does
he mean “directly”? Why the qualifier? I'll tell you why. Because
although the passage may not have the exact word “gossip” in it, the
verse does include references to actions that easily include gossip.

Let's look at the verse Warren quotes, remembering that the CEV (1992) is a
legitimate translation that seeks to put biblical language into contemporary
English. Prov. 17:4 reads: “Troublemakers listen to troublemakers, and
liars listen to liars” (CEV). Couldn't this verse be applied to gossip? I
think so since Warren has already shown via the other Proverbs passages he
cites (ignored by Busenitz) that those who gossip do indeed stir up trouble—and
we all know that a great deal of gossip is basically nothing but lies.

Now, more seriously, what about Jude 1:19. I would agree that this verse, too,
like Jude 1:16, is specifically targeting false teachers whose words were
dividing Christians. But what is very interesting here is how the denunciations
of their conduct can easily be applied to all of us. In fact, here is what the
Tyndale New Testament Commentary says about Jude 1:16 (which mentions murmurers and complainers—or grumblers):

“For murmurers, Jude uses the delightfully onomatopoeic word, gongustes;
Paul had used it to reflect the smoldering discontent of the Israelites in the
desert [1 Cor. 10:13]. Whenever a man gets out of touch with God he is likely
to begin complaining about something. To grumble and moan is one of the
distinguishing marks of a man without God. . . . In their case it was probably making complaints both about God and
about the church leaders. . . . This grumbling extended, too, to their lot in
life. . . . Unfortunately, those words fit many a Christian. This whole spirit
of grumbling is condemned roundly in James 1:13.”

As for Jude 1:19, The Message, quoted by Warren, reads: “These are the
ones who split churches, thinking only of themselves.” So does Jude 1:19
EXPLICITY or DIRECTLY mention “gossipers”? No. But must it specifically
mention “gossipers” in order to be coupled with Prov. 17:4? Well, it
sure would have been better if either: a) it did mention “gossip”; or b) it had an even more explicit broader application to
ALL Christians. But I can see what Warren was trying to say—i.e., the point he
was attempting to make.  Personally, I
would have linked Prov. 17:4 with some verse(s) other than Jude 1:19. So when I
read these remarks by Warren, I basically thought, “Hmmm, oh well,
whatever, I get his point, I would have said it differently, but no big
deal.”

Busenitz declares, “This type of hermeneutic is destined for
disaster.” I would submit that it is an obsession with straining at gnats
that will more quickly bring disaster to not only Christians, but also to the
church's unity. NO PERSON ever gets everything right—not Warren, not me, not
you, not Busenitz, not MacArthur, not _______ [fill in the blank].
Understanding this undeniable fact, and showing a little bit of forgiveness,
rather than being so exacting, is how Christ would want us to respond (I
think). And again, as I previously noted, it is not as if Warren has denied any
essential tenet of the. And any biblical glitches he has made are indeed just
that—glitches. Busenitz and others, in my opinion, have lost all perspective on this issue and are relishing this ongoing
witch-hunt for people whose views and ways are not to their narrow liking—the
most notable “witch,” at the moment, is Warren.

Out of 110 articles (± 1-2) by Gilley at http://www.svchapel.org,
only 2 are on Islam and only 5 are on Mysticism. But 34 of the articles target
Christians—i.e., Pentecostals, charismatics, Promise Keepers, non-pretribulationists,
women ministers, the vineyard, and others. Other articles deal with various Christian
life issues. Six articles deal with Warren (and/or purpose driven). Such a
spread of articles makes me wonder whether Gilley is actually most interested
in defending his own personal views/beliefs and getting others to see things
his way when it comes to Christianity. I will admit that some of the issues he has
written on are worthy of attention (e.g., the Word of Faith Movement,
Brownsville Revival, and Toronto Blessing), but there is an over-emphasis, in
my opinion, on attacking people within the body of Christ.

Also, Gilley seems to not be a very good researcher—or a very clear thinker.
For example, in the article you mention (part 1), he says: “I was
thoroughly bewildered as to whom the author [Rick Warren] was trying to connect
[in The Purpose Driven Life].”

But I am not quite sure why Gilley was unable to discern such a simple aspect
of Warren's book. From the contents we can see that his audience is
three-tiered: 1) the unchurched masses; 2) former church members who, for
whatever reason, have rejected Christianity (or fallen away); and 3) committed
Christians wanting deeper intimacy with God.

And then Gilley, still in part 1, says: “the gospel is never at anytime clearly
presented. . . . In Warren's gospel no mention is made of sin, repentance or
even the Cross.” Really? What book was Gilley reading? Here's what Rick
Warren stated in The Purpose Driven Life:
• “God has chosen you to have a relationship with Jesus, who died on the
cross for you. Believe that no matter what you’ve done, God wants to forgive
you. Second, receive. Receive Jesus into your life as your Lord and Savior.
Receive his forgiveness for your sins” (p. 58, just prior to sinner's
prayer)
• “If you want to know how much you matter to God, look at Christ with his
arms outstretched on the cross” (p. 79).
• “When he paid for our sins on the cross, the veil in the temple that symbolized
our separation from God was split from top to bottom” (p. 86).
• “In the Old Testament, God took pleasure in the many sacrifices of worship
because they foretold of Jesus’ sacrifice for us on the cross” (p. 105).
• “[Praise God] for what Jesus did for you on the cross. God’s Son died for
you!” (p. 112).
• “Whenever you give your time, you are making a sacrifice, and sacrifice
is the essence of love. Jesus modeled this: 'Be full of love for others,
following the example of Christ who loved you and gave Himself to God as a
sacrifice to take away your sins'” (pp. 127-128).
• “The church is so significant that Jesus died on the
cross for it” (p. 132).
• “[Jesus] was willing to die a shameful death on the cross because of the
joy he knew would be his afterwards” (p. 198).
• “[God] wants his lost children found! . . . [T]he Cross proves
that” (p. 288).
• “When Jesus stretched his arms out wide on the cross, he was saying, 'I
love you this much!' . . . Whenever you feel apathetic about your mission in
the world, spend some time thinking about what Jesus did for you on the
cross” (p. 294).

As for the many scriptures that Gilley cites, as I said, I have not gone
through each one word by word, but generally speaking, what he appears to be
most angry about is Warren's use of paraphrases. Well, that is a legitimate
objection. But every single translation/paraphrase has its weaknesses, some
more than others. Using a certain translation/paraphrase does not make someone a heretic or false teacher—even if
that person uses a paraphrase to support a certain position.

Again, we are dealing with a matter of perspective here. Some Christians, for
example, will only accept the KJV and then, BAM, no more—everything else is a
perversion of God's Word. To these people even Warren's use of the NIV, NASB,
and other legit translations would be enough to attack him. So where does it
all end? If Warren used paraphrases to support a point he made, well, it's not something that I would
have done, but I am not going to crucify him for it either. These paraphrases
exist, and it would be more valuable to deal with them in isolation, as a
separate issue, rather than linking them to Warren.

Many, many, many people/pastors use the paraphrases. Warren should not be
singled out the way he is being singled out. Gilley himself, in another article
(”The Bible Translation,” part 2), said that paraphrases sacrifice
“accuracy for readability. Works such as the Living Bible, Phillips, and
The Message, are all highly readable but represent more the interpretation of
the author than a translation of the text. These may have value as a comparison
but are of little use as a legitimate translation” (Think On These Things,
Jan. 1997, volume 2, issue 15).

Okay, fine. So here we have Gilley saying that paraphrases are “highly readable,”
but unlike Warren, he does not like quoting for them or using them to support
various things that he may teach. That's about the extent of the issue. Warren
and many other people like paraphrases—and they like to use them. Gilley and
many other people don't like paraphrases—and don't use them. Fine. Keep it in perspective.